[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Thu May 22 16:46:59 UTC 2014 

Kiran, the GNSO WG Guidelines outline the process for the chairs on how to
assess the level of support received which specifically does NOT include
voting. I've copied the specific language below and as you can see it is
intended to be an iterative process. I do want to note that the formal
designation of the level of consensus typically takes place at the end of
the process when recommendations are in the process of being finalised for
inclusion into the Initial Report. In our case it is clear that many of
the issues are tied together and the level of support may depend on the
outcome on some of the other issues, so it may not be advisable or even
possible to take formal consensus calls at this stage.

Best regards,

Marika 

>From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6

The recommended method for discovering the consensus level designation on
recommendations should work as follows:
i. After the group has discussed an issue long enough for all issues to
have been raised, understood and discussed, the Chair, or Co-Chairs, make
an evaluation of the designation and publish it for the group to review.
ii. After the group has discussed the Chair's estimation of designation,
the Chair, or Co-Chairs, should reevaluate and publish an updated
evaluation.
iii. Steps (i) and (ii) should continue until the Chair/Co-Chairs make an
evaluation that is accepted by the group.
iv. In rare case, a Chair may decide that the use of polls is reasonable.
Some of the reasons for this might be:
o A decision needs to be made within a time frame that does not allow for
the natural process of iteration and settling on a designation to occur.
o It becomes obvious after several iterations that it is impossible to
arrive at a designation. This will happen most often when trying to
discriminate between Consensus and Strong support but Significant
Opposition or between Strong support but Significant Opposition and
Divergence.

Care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes. A
liability with the use of polls is that, in situations where there is
Divergence or Strong Opposition, there are often disagreements about the
meanings of the poll questions or of the poll results.




On 22/05/14 18:37, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
<Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:

>Also incorrect. GNSO guidelines dictate what consensus means. Marika
>provides a link to these guidelines. Individuals are welcome to
>participate and there are guidelines as to how to count those votes.
>
>Kiran 
>
>Kiran Malancharuvil
>Internet Policy Counselor
>MarkMonitor
>415-419-9138 (m) 
>
>Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
>> On May 22, 2014, at 9:35 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I will also note that is is not just the SG/C feeback that counts. The
>>working group is not restricted to representatives of SGs or Cs. Anyone
>>(individuals) may participate, have a voice, and have their opinion
>>counted. I believe that's why we have moved away from voting and toward
>>the consensus positions. The Chair and Vice Chairs get the wonderful job
>>of trying to determine what the consensus is.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 22, 2014, at 11:30 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is not a cross SO/AC WG. It is a GNSO PDP on a matter that is
>>>under the GNSO umbrella of issues. As such, what we need is SG and C
>>>input/feedback.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 10:35 AM, "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>><Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly our point.  I believe you also made this point a couple weeks
>>>>ago. Despite the number of individual voices, there hasn't been a lot
>>>>of diverse (from an SO/AC perspective) input. To that point, there
>>>>should probably be outreach on this point.
>>>> 
>>>> K
>>>> 
>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:32 AM, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> To Steve¹s point: What other SO/ACs are speaking on this? Aren¹t we
>>>>>all
>>>>> (or at least the vocal elements) GNSO?
>>>>> 
>>>>> J.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/22/14, 10:05 , "Kiran Malancharuvil"
>>>>> <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe we intended to make clear that, as working group members,
>>>>>>we do
>>>>>> not vote as individuals but rather as representatives of our
>>>>>>individual
>>>>>> SO/AC/C. While a vote hasn't taken place yet, it's important to
>>>>>>remember
>>>>>> that sheer volume of vocal individuals isn't the point, regardless
>>>>>>of
>>>>>> where you fall on the issue.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> K
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>>>>>> Internet Policy Counselor
>>>>>> MarkMonitor
>>>>>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 22, 2014, at 8:01 AM, "Metalitz, Steven"
>>>>>> <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Libby, this is a helpful contribution.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Could you clarify one point:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ³However, a number of WG members, representing their SO/AC/C,
>>>>>> disagreedŠ.²  Which SO/AC/C are you referring to ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Libby Baney [mailto:libby.baney at fwdstrategies.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 10:55 AM
>>>>>> To: Marika Konings
>>>>>> Cc: Metalitz, Steven;
>>>>>> gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All -- as evidenced on last week's call, there is concern about the
>>>>>> language in the draft conclusion for Cat C threshold question. Per
>>>>>>the
>>>>>> request for specific edits, attached are redlined edits to the
>>>>>>template
>>>>>> submitted for the group's consideration by FWD Strategies Int'l,
>>>>>> LegitScript, MarkMonitor and DomainTools. We look forward to your
>>>>>> comments and further discussion if needed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Libby
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> www.FWDstrategies.com<http://www.FWDstrategies.com>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marika Konings
>>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Following on from Steve's emails, please find attached the updated
>>>>>> templates for C3 and D1, incorporating the notes from the meeting
>>>>>>(if
>>>>>> I've missed anything, please share your comments / edits with the
>>>>>>mailing
>>>>>> list). To re-emphasise the action items from the meeting:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.  Please provide your input on the draft preliminary conclusion
>>>>>>for C
>>>>>> threshold, C1 and C2 as circulated by Don. Several of you suggested
>>>>>> removing the word 'overwhelming' from the draft. Are there any other
>>>>>> proposed edits?
>>>>>> 2.  Please provide your input on question C3, especially if you are
>>>>>>of
>>>>>> the view that there should be differences in the data fields
>>>>>>displayed
>>>>>> for commercial entity and natural person P/P registrations.
>>>>>> 3.  Please provide your input on question D1, especially whether it
>>>>>> would be desirable to have a public registry of P/P services contact
>>>>>> information and a requirement to respond to enquiries both from P/P
>>>>>> customers as well as those looking to contact P/P customers. Input
>>>>>>on
>>>>>> what would qualify as a 'response' and a possible timeframe for
>>>>>>responses
>>>>>> are also encouraged.
>>>>>> 4.  Kathy and James will provide an update at the next meeting on
>>>>>> issues surrounding transfers between registrars of P/P
>>>>>>registrations and
>>>>>> possible questions the WG may want to address in this context.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: <Metalitz>, Steven <met at msk.com<mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>>> Date: Tuesday 20 May 2014 18:06
>>>>>> To: Marika Konings
>>>>>> <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>,
>>>>>> "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>>>> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>>>> Subject: PPSAI WG -- questions for list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks to all participants on today¹s call.  Following up on
>>>>>>requests
>>>>>> made on the call ----
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regarding Don¹s draft preliminary text regarding questions
>>>>>>C(threshold),
>>>>>> C 1 and C2, please circulate your comments and (especially
>>>>>>welcomed!)
>>>>>> proposed edits.  Don¹s draft is re-attached here for ready
>>>>>>reference.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regarding question C.3:  If the following applies to you, please
>>>>>>respond
>>>>>> on the list:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IF you believe that privacy/proxy services ought to be open to
>>>>>>commercial
>>>>>> entities under some circumstances, THEN should there be a
>>>>>>difference in
>>>>>> the data displayed for such registrations (vs. what is displayed
>>>>>>for p/p
>>>>>> registrations by natural persons)?  If the answer is YES, please
>>>>>>specify
>>>>>> the differences.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For myself I will say that my answer is NO, but I hope that any YES
>>>>>> people will step forward on the list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Steve Metalitz, vice chair
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@
>>>>>>icann
>>>>>> .org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>Marika
>>>>>> Konings
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 3:39 PM
>>>>>> To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Proposed Agenda - PPSAI WG Meeting
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for tomorrow's PPSAI WG
>>>>>>Meeting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Proposed Agenda ­ PPSAI WG Meeting ­ 20 May 2014
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.  Roll Call / SOI
>>>>>> 2.  Review proposed preliminary conclusion for threshold question,
>>>>>>C1
>>>>>> and C2 (as circulated by Don)
>>>>>> 3.  Review C3 ­ is additional response/discussion needed in light of
>>>>>> item 2? (see template attached)
>>>>>> 4.  Continue deliberations on D1 (see updated template attached)
>>>>>> 5.  Next steps / confirm next meeting
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Libby Baney, JD
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> FWD Strategies International
>>>>>> www.fwdstrategies.com<http://www.fwdstrategies.com>
>>>>>> P: 202-499-2296
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5056 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20140522/de8df8ea/smime.p7s>

More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list